Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. You are quite right to highlight the risks of two companies being registered with the same name. We have now had the chance to consider all of the companies identified in your post.
First, I can assure you that Companies House takes the registration of company names very seriously. Every application to register a company is considered by an individual and the name is either approved or declined. However, it appears as if we have made some mistakes on this occasion and 9 of the companies with duplicate names should not have been registered. These are:
ACTION ACCOUNTANCY SERVICES LTD
DENISE'S SOCIAL WORK LIMITED
FIREBALL EXT LIMITED
GREEN EMERALD ENTERPRISES LIMITED
HEARING CHECK LIMITED
PAS INFRASTRUCTURE ENGEERING LIMITED
RM PROPERTY (YORKSHIRE) LTD
SAPNA JETHWA LTD
From our investigations, I can confirm that we have found no evidence of fraudulent behaviour or any attempts by the companies concerned to pass themselves off as the other. Indeed, for 8 of the companies listed above, a customer has mistakenly submitted a second application for incorporation. In the other case (Hearing Check Limited) two companies with the same officers have mistakenly completed a change of name without first dissolving what would become the duplicate company.
In addition, I can confirm that we were already aware of all the duplicate names listed above and have been in contact with customers to inform them of the situation. In nearly every case, the customer has agreed to either dissolve the duplicate company or to allow the Registrar to take steps to dissolve the duplicate company. However, in two cases (RM Property Yorkshire LTD and 1CHEEKO LTD), we are still working with customers to discuss the best way to resolve the problem.
In the other (7) cases you identified, the duplicate names have been registered in accordance with the law of the time. In each instance, the duplicated name has occurred as the result of an order of Court. 6 of the cases relate to companies being restored by the Court to their previous name (i.e. their name prior to dissolution). The other relates to a dissolution being declared void by the Court. Those orders of Court were made pursuant to the 1985 Companies Act. Under the 1985 Act (unlike in current legislation) there is no concept of a company being restored to its company number should there be a duplicate name on the register. Therefore, we have a number of companies (which you have identified) where duplicate names legitimately appear on the register.
I would like to thank you once again for bringing this matter to our attention. Where mistakes have been made, I can assure you that we have taken steps to prevent such a situation occurring again in the future.